Friday, March 22, 2013

"The white man, that landed here; He came with two great weapons. One is the bible and the other was the gun. If he didn't humble you with the bible, he'd crumble you with the gun. And he's still praising the lord and passing the ammunition." - Lewis H. Michaux

The Second Amendment Hall of Fame is already loaded with such hallowed places like Columbine, Colorado and Newton, Connecticut and laudable Second Amendment "Heroes" Adam Lanza and Nidal Hassan and today we can add Quantico, Virgina and Kurt Myers to the Second Amendment Hall of Fame.

Gun Nuts believe their Right to Murder trump Americans Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In the early hours of 03/22/13, Three Marines at Quantico, Virginia have been shot to death. Apparently, two Marine Corps Officer Candidates were murdered by a Marine who then barricaded himself in a Barracks and eventually shot himself. The comments from the despicable Unrestricted Gun Violence Supporters were to blame Gun Control Advocates, President Obama and Muslims. (Update: The three Marines were all junior enlisted Active Duty trainers assigned to Quantico. As the killer murdered a male marine at one location and then killed a female marine and himself at the barracks it seems, sadly, this has the mark of an issue of infidelity.)

Last week, 64 year old Kurt Myers, a quiet loner who had only been arrested once in 1973 for Drunk Driving, shot six people seemingly at random killing four before barricading himself in an abandoned bar in Herkimer, Upstate New York. Myers then shot and killed FBI Working Dog “Ape” who was sent in against him before the Special Operations FBI/State Police Team killed him.

Seven people were shot in a wild gun fight after a rap concert at Mr. G's Entertainment Club in the Gresham Neighborhood of Southside Chicago in the early morning yesterday.

The Chief of the Colorado Department of Corrections Tom Clements was gunned down at his house two days ago*.

Gun Fanatics and Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists have so debased and sickened this Country that discussion of Gun Control evokes promises of violence and gun rampages. Multiple aspects of Gun Control enjoys overwhelming support amongst the American Populace. But, the NRA and Gun Nuts are creating an atmosphere of Death and Violence if their surrogate wieners are taken from them.

Speakers at CPAC 2013 promised a New Republican Party. But, what did The Lunatic Bachmann talk about at CPAC? Benghazi and Presidential Dog Walkers. Everytime a Republican mentions Benghazi they should immediately be asked to name the 4 Americans killed. I know it would be impossible to ask The Lunatic Bachmann because she’d run away from the Reporters.

And during all of this what are Right-Wing appointed Judges doing? Ruling that the Government keeping Guns out of the Hand of Convicted Felons is “Unconstitutional”. Because, the NRA backed a State Constitutional Amendment for Louisiana deeming gun ownership a “Fundamental Right” and according to Judge Judge Darryl Derbigny the State did not prove the “government’s compelling interest” in keeping the gun out of the hands of a convicted Felon.

We have a fundamental breakdown going on. The basic concept of Laws and Governance are being sundered by the NRA and a small minority of Gun Owners who would rather have scores of children die than see a single piece of legislation inhibit their so-called rights.

The Leadership of the NRA is paid millions to bully, cajole and entice Politicians to ignore the will of the people in service to Firearms Manufacturers. The NRA spends time attacking the ability of communities to restrict gun violence and supporting the rights of Felons and those on the FBI Terrorist Watch List to own firearms.

Even West Point Cadets know Conservatives are Domestic Terrorists. In response, Conservative Domestic Terrorists declare their intent to engage in Secession and armed violence using their beloved Second Amendment.
No, background checks aren’t a panacea. No, merely limiting the size of magazines to 10 rounds won’t stop the violence. Yes, the rules governing what is and what is not an “Assault Weapon” seem arbitrary.

But, More Guns has not made We, the People safer. More Guns Means More Gun Violence.

Unrestricted Gun Violence Supporters wail that it has but they are lying. We are awash in Gun Violence which is what Republicans, the NRA and Second Amendment Supporters obviously want. They want carnage and children murdered because they love and worship their Guns and Death.

Update:

*- The apparent suspect was identified in several reports as Evan Spencer Ebel, a 28-year-old Denver parolee who was shot to death Thursday after first wounding a North Texas sheriff’s deputy and then crashing his car during a chase that reached speeds of over 100 mph. Ebel is a member of the 211 Crew, also known as the Aryan Alliance.

Welcome to the Second Amendment Hall of Fame, Evan Ebel. You did the righteous work of Right-Wingers everywhere by gunning down a Bureaucrat who was trying to take away your Freedoms and Rights.

We awash in Guns and only Mexico has more Gun Murders than the US. We have 30,000 plus dying from gun related incidents (murders, accidents, suicides), multiple shootings happen daily across the country.

As I wrote in the post, Pro-Gun Murder Supporters, such as yourself, will lie that Gun Violence is down. And that's exactly what you did you lied.

It is not that they "want carnage and children murdered ". It's just that carnage and murdered children are an acceptable consequence of them having the ability to blow someone away (protect their things or themselves) instead of turning the other cheek like their god has taught them.

The main problem with your premise [of the multiple to choose from]is that the legislation that you would seek, per your post from 14 Mar, would not....and could not stop an otherwise mentally sound person from succumbing to an episode of rage or hate, where they use a firearm in a crime. There is risk in life due to human nature. Even eliminating the lawful ownership of firearms can not stop that, and would then only serve to place the unequal burden of protection on the citizen, in the face of the criminal who cares nothing for those laws.

Aside from that, your demonization of the NRA boogeyman, and anyone who wishes to see the Constitutional right to own a firearm continue without arbitrary and capricious legislation....illustrates a purely emotional point of view, rather than reasoned.

'Conservatives are domestic terrorists'? Really....is that any better than what the right wings says about the left? Stating that those who wish to retain the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms; to defend themselves and their families commensurate with the threat.....as 'wanting' carnage and dead children....detracts from anything serious you might have to say about gun violence in this nation.

One has no 'right to murder', so I'm not even sure why you would stoop to that rhetoric.

As for gun related violence, you could check out the Annenberg Center's report:http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

BTW, although the NRA is the convenient/easy boogeyman, the 2nd Amendment Foundation has been far more successful at protecting the RKBA against 'we've got to DO something-ism' than the NRA.

The most interesting aspect is that at the same time Gun Owners claim gun violence is down they assert the need for more guns.

So, why even comment on all the mass shootings and gun violence at all? If they truly believed that Gun Violence is down then it would logically follow that they don't need to address it.

It is exactly because Gun Violence is Up and Gun Homicides are Up that they want to reshape the debate and muddy the waters with the claim More Guns Equals More Safety.

Now, an additional issue is that Gun Nuts have succeeded in pressuring the Government at the Federal and State levels to not collect data on Gun Violence because they know data would undermine their claims.

If gun violence is indeed up.....then you could refute the Annenburg report instead of continually disparaging firearms owners, who by the way, don't necessarily want MORE guns......but to keep the ones they have....and not have the RKBA infringed by arbitrary and capricious legislation.....based solely on emotional responses to a tragedy.

The report you link even includes this disclaimer:Caution: No Single Number Can Tell the Whole story

It also notes Gun Suicides are up, to nearly 20,000 and while I agree with the principle of self-determination there is no way anyone can truthfully state all of the suicide attempts were made by a rational clear thinking individual.

And[N]on-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.

A Feb 1 2013 report from Annenberg spoke with Christopher S. Koper about his study of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban:

"But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."

and

"The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings."

and

"a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

Additionaly, everyone wants to claim their response is based soley on reason and rational thinking and not twinged with any squishy emotional appeals and that their opponents argument is the result of irrational emotional appeals. And that's crap.

I've never read or heard anything from the NRA or it's Leadership or any of the other Gun Right's Groups that doesn't invoke fear. I'll check out the 2nd Amendment Foundation.

"Fortunately, our enemy doesn't have any guns and they don't know how to use them," David Keene.

"[F]olks that are cognizant of the history not just in Germany but elsewhere look back to that history and say we can't let that sort of thing happen here." David Keene

The NRA and several other Guns Rights Groups routinely invoke Hitler/NAZI/Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao imagery towards Gun Control Advocates. It isn't done in a spirit of reasoned discussion about Guns and their role insociety but in order to bring about a visceral reaction.

Anyway,

Is the Constitution an infallible document? What does "well-regulated" mean? Does "shall not be infringed" mean that no laws can be written about guns? Is a Constituional Amendment the only recourse? What does "keep and bear arms" mean?

Agreed. Neither do yours that may convince you of a different conclusion.

"Additionaly, everyone wants to claim their response is based soley on reason and rational thinking and not twinged with any squishy emotional appeals and that their opponents argument is the result of irrational emotional appeals. And that's crap."

Concur with the first part. Where I have issues is with the gun control lobby and their political enablers, is the complete and utter fallacious nature of much of their argument.

"I've never read or heard anything from the NRA or it's Leadership or any of the other Gun Right's Groups that doesn't invoke fear."

Fear is in the ear of the beholder. If you choose to find it in statements of those in opposition to you, it's no different were the roles reversed.

I don't think the Constitution is infallible, though I do believe it be an extraordinary guiding document. The Amendment process was designed to be difficult for a a reason, and I think it should be the course of action for those wishing to drastically alter what is contained within.

Other constitutional amendments have restrictions on the rights stated in them. The first and fourth come readily to mind. Why is the second so special that no laws can be made to in any way restrict what kind of weapon a person can own??

I think the first and fourth amendments are more important than the second, but they have been trampled on by the courts to the point where we have very little of the rights granted by them.

Kulkuri - I don't disagree with the premise that all of our rights have been trampled.

However, you raise a predictably false argument. The second is already regulated to the point of onerous burden; there is no logic to claiming that rolling back ALL of the current regulation of the 2A is under any consideration.....to the point where you frame your statement.

Something to add to gun violence statistics, at least from my perspective, is the criminal v. criminal aspect. An aspect that I would not include in defining the proposed legislation; which only affects the lawful firearm owners.

An interesting snapshot from Baltimore, that is I'm sure mirrored in other high crime cities:

"More than 90 percent of the 71 people arrested on murder charges and 80 percent of the 196 people who were slain last year had criminal records, according to Baltimore police statistics released Monday. More than half the suspects had previous gun arrests, and four in 10 were on parole or probation."

I looked here and noted that under President Obama's Outstanding Leadership Violent Crime has gone way down compared to Bush. That's obviously your point.

Kulkuri,

That's okay I liked your comment. Don't worry that people allow themselves to have different standards based on their personal hypocrisy. Defecits don't matter (when Cheny says so...), Criticizing the President during a "time of war" (when it's a Republican...) is treason, Guns are too defend against Tyrannical Government say those who cheered as Occupy Movements were systematically routed by... Government.

Okay, Constitutional Insurgent, explain to me what the onerous burdens on second amendment rights consist of? The fact we're not allowed to stroll into Cabela's to purchase tactical nukes? The current restrictions, such as background checks or a short waiting period, aren't particularly onerous for the typical sane law-abiding citizen. Here in Michigan, I can walk into any retail outlet that sells firearms and walk out with a gun. No waiting period, no hassles, minimal paperwork. So exactly what onerous burden am I supposedly laboring under?

In the second comment from the top you say I am lying that gun violence is down. Now you've come back and said that [under obama's leadership] gun violence is way down.

Your comments that I'm lying when I say gun violence is down is contradicted by your statement that gun violence is down. You claim to be an LEO but didn't think to look at the UCR until I pointed it out to you!? LOL! You are nothing but a typical uninformed liberal blogger. End of story.

You're insults don't change the fact that GUN VIOLENCE is not down. Violent Crime is down but like a typical ignorant Conservative you don't understand that correlation is not causation. More Guns has not meant Less Gun Violence. You also apparently don't understand that Gun Violence is a subset of Violent Crime. Buffoon.

And besides racist Sheriff's who "joke" about assassinating the President, Police Chiefs and Law Enforcement Organizations support Universal Background checks and other gun control measures.

Grung_e_Gene you clearly have not done the research on gun crimes. As pointed out by the FBI's UCR they have been down year after year for more than a decade.

A good first start for getting your details straight is to use good data. Quoting Huff Post or Fox News is stupid and nothing but opinion.

Dot GOV sites are a great place for collecting real data. FBI says crime is down. BLS says unemployment is up. OMB says government accounts for more of our GDP then ever before. It's all right there on our government's sites but you won't hear it from the media and the government is counting on people being too lazy to research it themselves. Stupid is winning the fight.

Nan - you allude to some them yourself. You seem to forget the that we're not talking about a privilege bestowed by the state, we're talking about a Constitutional right. Name for me another that labors under the same restrictions.

I don't have an issue with background checks and waiting periods; prohibition against mental health and the NFA....but no other right has such regulation.

Now we have politicians proffering legislation pertaining to this right, based on an emotional need to "do something", but bereft of any logic. Gov Cuomo ramming through "emergency legislation" and deciding what the citizens of his state 'needed' [giving allowances to violent film and TV producers latitude denied to average citizens of course]; Feinstein and her 'scary looking rifle ban', are but a couple of examples of arbitrary and capricious legislation. You wouldn't stand for these shenanigans on any other Constitutional right, and rightly so.

'Tactical nukes' and 'bazooka's' [DiFi] are strawmen...please stick to firearms in this discussion.

Gene, you hit the nail on the head when you bring up personal hypocrisy....never has it been more illustrated than with this issue.

"And besides racist Sheriff's who "joke" about assassinating the President, Police Chiefs and Law Enforcement Organizations support Universal Background checks and other gun control measures."

You would do well to understand the number of LE organizations who support and uphold the Constitutional RKBA....unless of course...they're all racists.....

Right-Wingers only support DotGov sites for statistics when those conform to their preconceived ideas. But, when data comes out that does not well then it's Presidnet Obama and these Chicago Guys cheating...

Isn't the "liberals rule.....conservatives drool" type of argument beneath the level of rational discussion? Those on the left rely on preconceived notions and unchallenged assertions every bit as much as those on the right. This issue is not immune from that....on either side.

We are talking past one another. Of course, emotion is a current (of varying amounts) in Liberals arguments about Guns.

Just like Conservatives. It's just one side is proclaiming their arguments are all Constitutional and based purely on logic and reason while they use loaded words and invoke the most murderous people (Hitler!!! Stalin!!!!) to get a visceral emotional response from the supporters.

And yes I realize their Law Enforcement members who support no restrictions on guns whatsoever. And some support gun control of various levels.

Like Society there are many different viewpoints. There are Police Associations that fully support the President's positions as well.

As for the racist Sheriff can you please give me an over/under on how many you need so that I don't get the feeling you are moving the goal posts when I point out concrete examples?

"Police Chiefs and Law Enforcement Organizations support Universal Background checks and other gun control measures."

We may be quibbling over semantics, but you didn't qualify that statement with any caveats, you stated "LE organizations" as if they were the whole. And then provided one example of a dumbass. Do you have enough to put the over/under on par with the 380 Sheriffs and 14 [to date] state Sheriffs Associations who are on record as supporting gun rights in the face of recent legislative proposals?

I'm actually rather hard pressed [outside of fringe asshats like Ted Nugent] to find any credible statements by anybody, supporting zero firearm regulation....yet that canard is so often used by the gun control lobby to paint those who found their argument on actual fact, rather than emotion.

"I've visited your site before, and I want to tell you this isn't personal, but I don't like your smarmy comments and the way you conduct yourself..."- Blue Pit Bull

"Come back and post when you have some actual LIFE EXPERIENCE to tell us about, you callow and craven ignoramus." - Bloviating Zeppelin

"...you do a good job describing the obvious in a form of intelli-rage that comes across fresh and to the point." - Gwendolyn H. Barry.

"I hate your blog, so when it appeared on my Wordpress' "incoming links" (for no apparent reason), I was all set to mock this entry, but I found nothing wrong with it whatsoever..." - Francois Tremblay

One last thing before I go. I made a CPD friend aware of your blog. He doesn't think you're genuine either but he's looking into you and your posts. But whatever the case he's looking for you and if he finds you he wants for all of your colleagues to see your blog and where you stand on the issues. Later homie! - ChickenHammer